Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

Don't forget, the Pens can sign every top player for decent amounts, and still fit under the cap.

Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting NÃƒÂ¤slund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.

Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

The other thing to consider is that some of those forward spots could be filled by Caputi and/or Jeffrey. So thats an inexpensive roster spot, but in any case, I agree.

Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting NÃƒÂ¤slund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.

Sure it's easy to beat. He has declined in points every year since 2002-2003.

Last year he got 55 points. 60 the year before. You're telling me we can't find a 60 point winger for $4M? And probably one on the upswing instead of the downswing? The only real upside is that he has been healthy every year. Since 2002-2003, his production is almost cut in half (104 vs 55).

With Naslund, we would have had ONE top 6 winger spot filled. 2 if you count Dupuis. And only 15M to sign TWO more top 6 wingers plus everyone else I mentioned. Staal really throws a whole monkey wrench into the situation because we don't know what he is going to do.

Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

The other thing to consider is that some of those forward spots could be filled by Caputi and/or Jeffrey. So thats an inexpensive roster spot, but in any case, I agree.

I agree, but you can't depend on that. That would be like Shero not signing Satan and planning on Pesonen filling a top 6 role without him ever setting foot on NHL ice.

Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting NÃƒÂ¤slund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.

Sure it's easy to beat. He has declined in points every year since 2002-2003.

Last year he got 55 points. 60 the year before. You're telling me we can't find a 60 point winger for $4M? And probably one on the upswing instead of the downswing? The only real upside is that he has been healthy every year. Since 2002-2003, his production is almost cut in half (104 vs 55).

With Naslund, we would have had ONE top 6 winger spot filled. 2 if you count Dupuis. And only 15M to sign TWO more top 6 wingers plus everyone else I mentioned. Staal really throws a whole monkey wrench into the situation because we don't know what he is going to do.

Again, his points totals are not that fair since he hasn't had a real center around. Whenever paired with the Sedins he's been good for a point per game.

Look at his talents, wheels and shot. He could be awesome getting a fresh start with a guy like Sid. At 4 mil NÃƒÂ¤slund would've been a solid signing. He needs some help but on the Pens would've gotten it.

I'd take him over Satan any day of the week. We obviously don't agree though

There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.

The Penguins will remain a team to be well respected this season, based primarily on the character and resourcefulness that their core demonstrated all of last season. This is a young, battle tested squad with added vets who want to follow their lead into greatness.

I'm in the minority of being very disapointed with the way management pursued the best interest of the team, but in the end it still comes down to that young core. It remains unmatched in the world of hockey.

PenguinHockeyFanatic wrote:There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.

The Penguins will remain a team to be well respected this season, based primarily on the character and resourcefulness that their core demonstrated all of last season. This is a young, battle tested squad with added vets who want to follow their lead into greatness.

I'm in the minority of being very disapointed with the way management pursued the best interest of the team, but in the end it still comes down to that young core. It remains unmatched in the world of hockey.

What was the best interest of the team? Just wanted to know your opinion.

PenguinHockeyFanatic wrote:There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.

Both are on the decline, yes, but the chances of a rebirth is so much higher with a guy talented like NÃƒÂ¤slund. He was an elite winger when Satan was very good, and as late as last year he had stretches when he looked great. He's had two less good seasons now without very good linesmates but still scored 25 both years.

I'm not sure he'll be a hit with the Rangers though and then I'll have to eat my words, but potientally he was the best option for Sid after Hossa.

Last edited by André on Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

PenguinHockeyFanatic wrote:There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.

The Penguins will remain a team to be well respected this season, based primarily on the character and resourcefulness that their core demonstrated all of last season. This is a young, battle tested squad with added vets who want to follow their lead into greatness.

I'm in the minority of being very disapointed with the way management pursued the best interest of the team, but in the end it still comes down to that young core. It remains unmatched in the world of hockey.

What was the best interest of the team? Just wanted to know your opinion.

PenguinHockeyFanatic wrote:There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.

The Penguins will remain a team to be well respected this season, based primarily on the character and resourcefulness that their core demonstrated all of last season. This is a young, battle tested squad with added vets who want to follow their lead into greatness.

I'm in the minority of being very disapointed with the way management pursued the best interest of the team, but in the end it still comes down to that young core. It remains unmatched in the world of hockey.

What was the best interest of the team? Just wanted to know your opinion.

Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting NÃƒÂ¤slund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.

Sure it's easy to beat. He has declined in points every year since 2002-2003.

Last year he got 55 points. 60 the year before. You're telling me we can't find a 60 point winger for $4M? And probably one on the upswing instead of the downswing? The only real upside is that he has been healthy every year. Since 2002-2003, his production is almost cut in half (104 vs 55).

With Naslund, we would have had ONE top 6 winger spot filled. 2 if you count Dupuis. And only 15M to sign TWO more top 6 wingers plus everyone else I mentioned. Staal really throws a whole monkey wrench into the situation because we don't know what he is going to do.

Again, his points totals are not that fair since he hasn't had a real center around. Whenever paired with the Sedins he's been good for a point per game.

Look at his talents, wheels and shot. He could be awesome getting a fresh start with a guy like Sid. At 4 mil NÃƒÂ¤slund would've been a solid signing. He needs some help but on the Pens would've gotten it.

I'd take him over Satan any day of the week. We obviously don't agree though

2 points to this then I'm done with it:

1. Almost any player in the league would benefit being with Sid compared to who they have now. Satan played with zilch on the Islanders, so the same thing you argued could be said for him. Again... the big difference being that Satan wanted to play here, so we didn't have to get into a bidding war AND he only took one year. There are countless players I would rather have over either of them, so I don't see any sense in jeapordizing next year to sign a guy that is EASILY replaced at this point in his career. Declining points are declining points. He produced 104 points on the same team that he produced 55.

2. The Penguins have had ZERO success with any older players. Whether it's the system, the surrounding players, the coach...
Leclaire - bombed
Recchi - couldn't keep up for a whole season
Roberts - on ice contributions were nothing
Sydor - he's doing ok but had trouble fitting in

Sykora is the only guy who made it, and he's only 32 (Naslund at 35). Satan is 34, which isn't a big difference, but then I go back to 1 year vs 2. If Satan doesn't fit in, we cut ties in the spring and no harm done.

If no other winger above the age of 33 has worked out, why would you risk 4 million (actually it would take more to get him since 4 is what NY offered, meaning we would need more) over 2 years? Again... it jeapordizes A LOT next year. If you are ok with Naslund over Staal, then that's fine... but that is the choice that would have had to be made if Staal produces numbers this year.

Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.

If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.

If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.

By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.

Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.

Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting NÃƒÂ¤slund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.

Sure it's easy to beat. He has declined in points every year since 2002-2003.

Last year he got 55 points. 60 the year before. You're telling me we can't find a 60 point winger for $4M? And probably one on the upswing instead of the downswing? The only real upside is that he has been healthy every year. Since 2002-2003, his production is almost cut in half (104 vs 55).

With Naslund, we would have had ONE top 6 winger spot filled. 2 if you count Dupuis. And only 15M to sign TWO more top 6 wingers plus everyone else I mentioned. Staal really throws a whole monkey wrench into the situation because we don't know what he is going to do.

Again, his points totals are not that fair since he hasn't had a real center around. Whenever paired with the Sedins he's been good for a point per game.

Look at his talents, wheels and shot. He could be awesome getting a fresh start with a guy like Sid. At 4 mil NÃƒÂ¤slund would've been a solid signing. He needs some help but on the Pens would've gotten it.

I'd take him over Satan any day of the week. We obviously don't agree though

2 points to this then I'm done with it:

1. Almost any player in the league would benefit being with Sid compared to who they have now. Satan played with zilch on the Islanders, so the same thing you argued could be said for him. Again... the big difference being that Satan wanted to play here, so we didn't have to get into a bidding war AND he only took one year. There are countless players I would rather have over either of them, so I don't see any sense in jeapordizing next year to sign a guy that is EASILY replaced at this point in his career. Declining points are declining points. He produced 104 points on the same team that he produced 55.

2. The Penguins have had ZERO success with any older players. Whether it's the system, the surrounding players, the coach...Leclaire - bombedRecchi - couldn't keep up for a whole seasonRoberts - on ice contributions were nothingSydor - he's doing ok but had trouble fitting in

Sykora is the only guy who made it, and he's only 32 (Naslund at 35). Satan is 34, which isn't a big difference, but then I go back to 1 year vs 2. If Satan doesn't fit in, we cut ties in the spring and no harm done.

If no other winger above the age of 33 has worked out, why would you risk 4 million (actually it would take more to get him since 4 is what NY offered, meaning we would need more) over 2 years? Again... it jeapordizes A LOT next year. If you are ok with Naslund over Staal, then that's fine... but that is the choice that would have had to be made if Staal produces numbers this year.

None of your comparisons are very good. Your examples were way older than 33.

Recchi was fine with the Pens until last year, aged 39 without good hands...

Leclair was 38 and slower than Hatcher his last year

Roberts turned 42 this spring...

Sydor doesn't suck he's just not needed on the Pens (well now he might be with Whitney's injury) and he's a D-man, not a forward still with the tools to look great on the Pens' top six.

They could "EASILY" make a better top six signing? Malone got 4.5 and he's slower and less of a scorer. He contributes in other ways and is younger, of course, but it's still an interesting comparison.

I guess the most similiar forward style wise is Huselius and he got 4.75 and his numbers weren't better than NÃƒÂ¤slund's last year after spending much of the season with Iginla (there's no arguing his talent though).

Vrbata at 3 could end up being better signing but his 27 goals last year was the first season in which he even threatened 30 goals.

His decline has been on the same team, yes. But without the support he used to have. Again, with the Sedins he's been around a point per game. As late as last year. He's a world class talent, that much better than Satan.

Don't look at points but rather at goals (considering the role he'd have on the Pens) and what skills he still displays.

And I clearly said I would never take him if it jeopardized Staal's being or not being on the Pens after this season. You're a bit pessimistic about next year though. If Staal produces it's at wing and they'd then already have a top four of him, NÃƒÂ¤slund, Malkin and Crosby for 09/10.

It's still worse than getting him at a one year contract, of course, but your argument he's not better than Satan and not a good signing at 4 mil is just off though, as well as your comparison to players 3 to 7 years older who were without either wheels or hands in their final year with the Pens.

bhaw wrote:Sorry, but I have to ask... does your passion to want Naslund here stem from the fact that he's Swedish?

I'm not talking about passionately wanting him here, but was by the end mainly arguing he's better than Satan, that it wasn't easy this summer to do a better signing than NÃƒÂ¤slund at 4 mil and why your comparisons weren't accurate

bhaw wrote:Sorry, but I have to ask... does your passion to want Naslund here stem from the fact that he's Swedish?

I'm not talking about passionately wanting him here, but was by the end mainly arguing he's better than Satan, that it wasn't easy this summer to do a better signing than NÃƒÂ¤slund at 4 mil and why your comparisons weren't accurate

That said, yes, I like him

I never said Satan was better... I actually think I said Naslund was marginally better. My underlying points are about the flexibility to do what they need this coming off season. Naslund would handcuff them no matter what way you slice it. Satan was a better signing.

bhaw wrote:Sorry, but I have to ask... does your passion to want Naslund here stem from the fact that he's Swedish?

I'm not talking about passionately wanting him here, but was by the end mainly arguing he's better than Satan, that it wasn't easy this summer to do a better signing than NÃƒÂ¤slund at 4 mil and why your comparisons weren't accurate

That said, yes, I like him

I never said Satan was better... I actually think I said Naslund was marginally better. My underlying points are about the flexibility to do what they need this coming off season. Naslund would handcuff them no matter what way you slice it. Satan was a better signing.

My final word is that I think your arguing has downplayd NÃƒÂ¤slund more than what's actually the case, and that I think only one top six winger at two years wouldn't be catastrophic. I very much agree with you though that a one year deal is better than a two year deal

Altough I would trade Satan for NÃƒÂ¤slund and his current contract straight up

If we only look at goals the difference between Satan and NÃƒÂ¤slund aint that great in the modern NHL era. Post lockout Satan got 78 even with that terrible last season which was his only with less than 25 goals since 97/98. NÃƒÂ¤slund got 81 goals over those 3 seasons.

I also agree that the term is a big factor as well.

I would prolly prefer NÃƒÂ¤slund too, but this might very well turn out for the better.

Career wice NÃƒÂ¤slund got 34 goals more than Satan, but have also plaid 88 more games.

stefanh wrote:If we only look at goals the difference between Satan and NÃƒÂ¤slund aint that great in the modern NHL era. Post lockout Satan got 78 even with that terrible last season which was his only with less than 25 goals since 97/98. NÃƒÂ¤slund got 81 goals over those 3 seasons.

I also agree that the term is a big factor as well.

I would prolly prefer NÃƒÂ¤slund too, but this might very well turn out for the better.

Career wice NÃƒÂ¤slund got 34 goals more than Satan, but have also plaid 88 more games.

Career Goal ratio:NÃƒÂ¤slund 0.358 goals per gameSatan 0.356 gpg

Yeah but he took his time coming around. His top ceiling is alot higher than Satan's, and there's no denying he's the greater talent.

stefanh wrote:If we only look at goals the difference between Satan and NÃƒÂ¤slund aint that great in the modern NHL era. Post lockout Satan got 78 even with that terrible last season which was his only with less than 25 goals since 97/98. NÃƒÂ¤slund got 81 goals over those 3 seasons.

I also agree that the term is a big factor as well.

I would prolly prefer NÃƒÂ¤slund too, but this might very well turn out for the better.

Career wice NÃƒÂ¤slund got 34 goals more than Satan, but have also plaid 88 more games.

Career Goal ratio:NÃƒÂ¤slund 0.358 goals per gameSatan 0.356 gpg

Yeah but he took his time coming around. His top ceiling is alot higher than Satan's, and there's no denying he's the greater talent.

This is getting old though

I dunno. When I watched Nucks games last year, Naslund just seemed a shell of his former self. He really didn't look all that fast to me. He was one player that I was glad the Pens didn't take a chance on. Satan was sort of "meh" too last year but he's less of a chance since it's only one year. I also think the one year deal provides some incentive to play better, i.e. Ryan Malone. I think Satan has the better year of the two.

stefanh wrote:If we only look at goals the difference between Satan and NÃƒÂ¤slund aint that great in the modern NHL era. Post lockout Satan got 78 even with that terrible last season which was his only with less than 25 goals since 97/98. NÃƒÂ¤slund got 81 goals over those 3 seasons.

I also agree that the term is a big factor as well.

I would prolly prefer NÃƒÂ¤slund too, but this might very well turn out for the better.

Career wice NÃƒÂ¤slund got 34 goals more than Satan, but have also plaid 88 more games.

Career Goal ratio:NÃƒÂ¤slund 0.358 goals per gameSatan 0.356 gpg

Yeah but he took his time coming around. His top ceiling is alot higher than Satan's, and there's no denying he's the greater talent.

This is getting old though

I dunno. When I watched Nucks games last year, Naslund just seemed a shell of his former self. He really didn't look all that fast to me. He was one player that I was glad the Pens didn't take a chance on. Satan was sort of "meh" too last year but he's less of a chance since it's only one year. I also think the one year deal provides some incentive to play better, i.e. Ryan Malone. I think Satan has the better year of the two.

I agree Satan could outperform both NÃƒÂ¤slund and Malone last year. Much because of a top six role on the Pens though (probably with Sid).